Tag Archives: intentional infliction of emotional distress

It has been three years since Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor of New York for getting busted for hooking up with a prostitute (time flies!). Shortly after he resigned, Girls Gone Wild offered Ashley Dupre, the high-priced prostitute Spitzer was accused of patronizing, a million dollars to be in a new Girls Gone Wild magazine spread and promotional tour. But when the producers realized they already had archival footage of her from years earlier, they revoked that offer.

Dupre sued Joseph Francis, the head of Matra Films (the producer of Girls Gone Wild) for $10 million alleging that he improperly used Dupre’s image from the archival footage. She claimed that because she was only 17 at the time, she didn’t understand the nature of what she was doing. Francis responded by releasing a video that made its rounds on the web (maybe NSFW) that showed the 17-year-old Dupree saying she was of age, and presenting a New Jersey driver’s license bearing the name of plaintiff Arpaio.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Dupre and Girls Gone Wild alleging defamation and invasion of privacy. After none of the defendants responded to the lawsuit, the court entered default against the Girls Gone Wild defendants. Plaintiff never properly served the complaint on Dupre, so it did not enter default judgment against her.

The court awarded plaintiff $3 million in damages. It based this figure on her testimony and other evidence relating to plaintiff’s distress from being mistaken for Dupre, her concern that future employment would be jeopardized from employers doing a Google search on her and learning of the situation, the harm from plaintiff’s children (someday) being exposed to insulting material, and plaintiff’s symptoms consistent with post traumatic stress disorder.

Defendant took pictures of his ex-girlfriend “engaged in various sex acts with two other people.” Later he emailed some of the photos to his ex-girlfriend’s mother, ex-husband, ex-in laws, boss and co-workers.

The ex-girlfriend sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion in large part.

Infliction of emotional distress

Defendant argued that the court should toss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because Plaintiff ex-girlfriend failed to show that Defendant’s conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous, and that the alleged distress exceeded what a reasonable person would experience in the circumstances.

The court rejected Defendant’s arguments. It found that an average citizen would think emailing photos of a person engaged in a manage a trois to one of the participants’ mother, among others, was outrageous. Moreover, Plaintiff’s distress was shown to be severe, as she had to get counseling. It sounds as if the court would have found it severe enough even without the counseling — Defendant’s conduct was “so shocking and outrageous as to give rise to an inference of severe emotional distress.”

Invasion of privacy

Plaintiff claimed two forms of invasion of privacy — intrusion upon seclusion and publication of private facts. The court held she had presented enough facts for the latter but not the former.

The court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to intrusion upon seclusion because no intrusion occurred. Plaintiff knew Defendant was there taking pictures of the activities. The court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that publication of the no doubt intimate photos constituted intrusion. It held that the disclosure of properly obtained information could not give rise to the claim.

But as to the argument that emailing the photos unlawfully publicized private facts, the court sided with Plaintiff. Defendant had argued that emailing the photos to only a half dozen or so people did not amount to “publication,” which is one of the elements of the tort. He pointed to Comment “a” of the Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D which says that “it is not an invasion of the right of privacy to communicate a fact . . . to a single person, or even to a small group of people.”

In rejecting this argument, the court engaged in what some might characterize as “Internet exceptionalism,” — applying the law in response to a perceived substantial difference between online and offline communication. The court observed that “the Internet enables its users to ‘quickly and inexpensively’ surmount the barriers to generating publicity that were inherent in the traditional forms of communication.” Finding this distinction to be significant, the court held that distribution of the photos even to a small group of people through the private means of electronic mail could be considered a “publication” for purposes of the tort of invasion of privacy.
Threesome photo courtesy Flickr user curgoth under this Creative Commons license.

Evan Brown is an attorney in Chicago helping businesses and individuals identify and manage issues dealing with technology development, copyright, trademarks, domain names, software licensing, service agreements and other matters involving the internet and new media.

Evan is a partner in the law firm of Much Shelist, P.C. He is an adjunct professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and is a Domain Name Panelist with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).